On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:01:48PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > Do they intend this as a "notes" or a "license"? > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > - commercial products that include this document are themselves > > compliant with the DSFG and don't consist of this document only. > > What's the point of the first statement: "are themselves compliant with > the DSFG"? The statement doesn't make it any more true.
The statement you quoted is inside a "provided that" clause. So they're making DFSG compliance a legal requirement, which is a bit problematic since the DFSG was never intended as a legal document :) I'm sure there are loads of ways to make a license legally DFSG-compliant while still being extremely non-free. That in itself is not a problem in terms of freeness, since it just makes it easier to comply with the license. But the vagueness might go in the other direction, too. We've already seen how broadly the "No discrimination against fields of endeavor" clause can be interpreted. If you make such a commercial product, can you have any confidence that you have followed the license in a way that will hold up in court? Richard Braakman
